William Oakley, who is homeless, hangs out at Eddie Maestas Park across from the Denver Rescue Mission on Aug. 22. The city has plans to transform the park into a community garden. Oakley was upset by the news. (Photos by RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post)

It seems that the city of Denver is once again putting the cart before the horse. More than a year ago the City Council, motivated by “compassion,” made it illegal for homeless people to sleep outside. At the time, fully aware of the lack of shelter space, the city promised a new 24-hour, full-service shelter. There has been no obvious progress on this to date. Is this due to lack of will or lack of leadership?

Now, in the name of fighting crime, the city wants to block homeless people from access to downtown parks, knowing well that the day shelters are already overwhelmed. The city says it wants to “work with” homeless providers to bring about a day shelter with an enclosed courtyard. Is this another pipe dream?

Is there a way for the city to assume responsibility for providing services to homeless people rather than hoping that volunteer church groups and nonprofit agencies will provide what the city will not?

Mary Casper, Bailey

This letter was published in the Aug. 31 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Cyclists cross a bridge over Cherry Creek along a bike path in Hentzell Park near Hampden Avenue in Denver on June 1. (Andy Cross, The Denver Post)

Regarding Denver Mayor Michael Hancock exploiting Denver’s oversight (not “designating” Hentzell Park) to bypass the City Charter’s intent, Joanne Ditmer writes that “it is much more productive to work with an informed and participating citizenry … . ”

This is the key point. In the 1980s, Denver city government and City Park neighbors worked together and good things happened: City Park Jazz, closure of park roads, limits to zoo and museum expansion.

Cooperation deteriorated, then collapsed with the Hickenlooper administration’s campaign to “activate” parks for commercial profit.

The Hancock team likes to short-circuit transparency and citizen involvement. To them, a park is vacant land for trade or sale (Hentzell), a problem to be solved (Triangle Park), or too quiet and in need of commercial “activation” (City Park, despite its annual 4 million visitors).

Put elected city government on notice: Give Denver’s neighborhood residents a genuine seat at the table controlling our parks’ destinies.

Nancy Francis, Denver

This letter was published in the Aug. 28 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Kudos to Susan Barnes-Gelt and Tom Noel for their columns in last Sunday’s Denver Post regarding the critical importance of protecting existing parks and open space. Having parks and natural areas close to home where all of us — but especially those with limited transportation, such as children and the elderly — can connect with nature is vital to our quality of life.

Unfortunately, it seems that some government entities, including those responsible for protection of our parks and open space, do not share this perspective. Shameful examples are the case of Denver trading away part of Hentzell Park and the proposed Chatfield reallocation project, which would effectively remove 587 acres (approximately 15 percent) of park land from the heart of Chatfield State Park.

It is a sad situation when citizens have to resort to litigation to protect these irreplaceable public amenities.

Gene R. Reetz, Denver

This letter was published in the July 28 edition.

Thank you for the park columns by Suan Barnes-Gelt and Tom Noel. The issue in Denver parks is not the manager so much as the policy. Shoving parks into the city’s revenue stream and selling them off is a deep misunderstanding of what the role of parks in our city should be.

Tom Morris, Denver

This letter was published in the July 28 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Council member Jeanne Robb suggests that the Denver City Council’s involvement in parks is quite adequate with the existing powers to review contracts and the annual budget and a few other marginal means. If this were the case, the almost continual public stress over park issues should have been somehow resolved in other places — rather than with years of dispute, the courts and threats of a public vote.

As a participant in at least three of these park brouhahas, I can assure anyone who really cares that considering land-use issues under the pressure of decisions already made is a very, very bad idea. The time for land-use issues to be decided is long before a project is on the table.

I will not dispute that the City Council has in the past avoided park issues like the plague. This is precisely why we have had years-long battles over issues which could have been resolved peacefully under a formal zoning process. If the city had a legal and logical policy about what happens in our precious parks, we might avoid the anger generated by trying to alter decisions made in back rooms.
Tom Morris, Denver

This letter was published in the Dec. 21 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

The multi-faceted approach used in Jeanne Robb’s guest commentary leaves so many questions to be answered that it is almost impossible to compile such a list. I will, therefore, confine my comments to one very serious fault in the new zoning code regarding the new parks zone.

At several public meetings and in letters written to members of the City Council, I have asked that the zoning code authors give the same consideration of the zoning of the public’s land as they do for all of the private land in the city. These requests have also been made by many neighborhood organizations as well as former parks managers.

All zone descriptions relating to private land (commercial, industrial and residential) have lengthy and very detailed rules and regulations that builders must follow in order to construct any building in these zones. The planning office and the City Council have informed those of us who have requested that parks be given the same consideration as private land that this is too difficult to accomplish.

The complete lack of rules for parks is not acceptable public policy. The parks belong to the citizens, not to the elected or appointed officials. We need definitions for uses, size, height and bulk plane for our land, making it equal in importance to the land owned by private individuals.

Cathy Donohue, Denver

This letter was published in the Dec. 21 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...